Shaik Mohammad Rasool vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the goods under transportation were finished products, specifically carved granite stones (sculptures). While the respondents initiated proceedings for alleged violation of seigniorage fee rules, the petitioners, as owners of the vehicles, were not directly involved in the transportation or the alleged violation. Citing the order in W.P. No.18030 of 2016, the Court directed the release of the vehicles forthwith upon the petitioners furnishing details of the persons who transported the goods. The Court clarified that this order would not preclude the respondents from detaining the goods and taking further action in accordance with the law, nor would it prevent them from instituting criminal proceedings against the transporter if they chose to do so under Rule 26(3)(ii) of the Rules. The primary reasoning was to grant relief to the innocent vehicle owners while preserving the revenue's right to proceed against the goods and the actual transporter.

Facts

The petitioners, owners of two vehicles (bearing Nos. AP 26 TA 6786 and AP 07 TF 5769), filed a writ petition seeking the release of their vehicles detained since 23.10.2018. The vehicles were hired to transport carved granite stones from Martur, Andhra Pradesh, to a temple in Telangana. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner-II, Kothapet Circle, stopped the vehicles at Chilakaluripeta, checked the consignment, and detained them along with the goods for further inquiry, issuing FORM GST MOV-06 to the drivers. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (2nd respondent) issued show-cause notices on 01.11.2018 for alleged violation of seigniorage fee rules, as the mineral was transported without transit forms/passes. The petitioners argued that no notices were served on them and that the goods were finished products (sculptures) for a temple, not raw minerals, and sought only the release of the vehicles, not the goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of the vehicles by the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, specifically concerning the authority of Commercial Tax and Mines and Geology departments to seize vehicles transporting finished goods. 2. Whether the vehicles, owned by the petitioners who merely hired them out, should be released pending further inquiry into the goods' transportation, given that the petitioners are not the transporters or owners of the goods. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that the goods under transportation were carved stone sculptures, finished products for a temple construction, accompanied by a certificate from the temple's Executive Officer. They argued that neither Commercial Tax nor Mines and Geology authorities had the power to seize the vehicles. They had no objection to the detention of the goods but pleaded for the release of their vehicles, emphasizing that no notices were served on them. They relied on a previous order of the High Court in W.P. No.18030 of 2016. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology contended that show-cause notices were issued on 01.11.2018 by the 2nd respondent, calling for an explanation regarding the collection of seigniorage fee and market value for transporting minerals without proper transit forms/passes, in violation of Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and APMDL Rules, 2017.